US 'exposure to crisis $23.7tn

[Desroko]

I don't know why I'm bothering but....

You can't lose money you didn't risk. Table 3.4 of the report you obviously didn't read is how this lunacy got started. For example, TARP is correctly estimated to be on the hook for 600 bn. But he pulls a number out of his ass and says that its total potential liability is 3 trillion. It's not. TARP is only authorized up to $700bn, by law, and hasn't spent most of that. If Congress changes the law and authorized Treasury to disburse that much, it might make sense to include that in potential risk. If Treasury actually spent that money, it would definitely make sense to categorize it as a risk. But neither of those two things have happened.

Say I walk into a casino with $1000 to my name, and bet $500 on a spin of the wheel. If you would say that I have $1000 at risk, congratulations - you're an idiot.

Here's a fun sentence: "In certain cases, programs included have been canceled or repaid." In other words, no money is at risk, yet he included it in his risk estimate anyway.

"Also, there is potential for some double-counting."

"Note that many of these programs are collateralized or have not been drawn down to their full authorized
levels, and as such, the actual potential for losses is likely to be lower. "

"Not designed to provide a firm financial statement."

"Has not been evaluated to provide an estimate of likely net costs to the taxpayers."

Is there anyone here stupid enough to think that a house can possibly be worth zero dollars - let alone every house with a mortgage backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?